>(EDIT: This does not mean that he necessarily didn't have mental problems, but that he was coherent enough to be able to justify his decisions sufficiently that the court found he was competent to make his own decisions about whether or not he needed treatment)
Where is the difference between this guy and the one who risks their lives and their childrens' lives by being a missionary in some place where their work can be punished by death? If anything, this man is more sane as he isn't risk his life and the lives of those close to him.
P.S. I'm a religious guy myself, but I am seriously asking this. In many ways religion itself can seem to be a mental illness if it weren't so popular.
> I'm a religious guy myself, but I am seriously asking this. In many ways religion itself can seem to be a mental illness if it weren't so popular.
Look up delusion in the DSM. The definition is more accurate without a special exemption. A close examination of the entire manual will reveal a careful wording to prevent religious people from being diagnosed with any sort of condition.
Simply the fact that this approach is taken says volumes. A rose by any other name...
Where is the difference between this guy and the one who risks their lives and their childrens' lives by being a missionary in some place where their work can be punished by death? If anything, this man is more sane as he isn't risk his life and the lives of those close to him.
P.S. I'm a religious guy myself, but I am seriously asking this. In many ways religion itself can seem to be a mental illness if it weren't so popular.